2.
AcknowledgementsThe Department of National Defence (DND), Defence Research and Development Canada(DRDC), and Industry Canada (IC) would like to acknowledge the contributions and supportprovided by the IC Special Events team that organized the Soldier Human and SystemsIntegration workshop venue, logistics, and accommodations; the Human and Systems Integrationtechnical subcommittee and co-chairs and the Executive Steering Committee for sharing theirtime and expertise; The Strategic Review Group (SRG) Inc., for facilitating the workshop; and theparticipants from across Canada, the United States, and abroad, who contributed to making theworkshop a success. Special thanks to those who presented at the workshop, for sharing theirtime, energy, and knowledge.In addition, many thanks to the Canadian Forces Directorate of Armoured Vehicle ProgramManagement for providing a LAV 3 vehicle, to Mr. D. Palmer and Captain A. Dionne of theDirectorate of Land Requirements (DLR-5), the Canadian Forces rifle section from the CameronHighlanders of Ottawa, and the light armoured vehicle driver from the Régiment de Hull, whoprovided an demonstration of the challenges associated with integrating human and systemscomponents of the soldier system in a combat situation. Page ii of 122

7.
Executive SummaryThis report describes the Soldier Human and Systems Integration Workshop held inGatineau, Québec, in September, 2010—the sixth in a series of workshops held as partof the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmapping (SSTRM) initiative.The Introduction, Human and Systems Integration Workshop and the SSTRM,provides an overview of the roadmap, places the human and systems integrationworkshop in the context of the roadmap, describes the workshop goal and process, andincludes abstracts of introductory presentations made at the workshop.Chapter 1, Exploring Operational Space: Key Deficiencies and Priorities, providesabstracts of workshop presentations focusing on the deficiencies and prioritiesassociated with human and systems integration and the Canadian soldier. It alsodescribes a demonstration presented by Canadian Forces personnel to illustrate thosedeficiencies and priorities.Chapter 2, Exploring Functional Space: Related H&SI Challenges, providespresentation abstracts related to workshop themes and challenges. It also describesbreakaway session 1, a roundtable discussion during which workshop participantsrefined their understanding of the challenges from the perspective of three workshopthemes.Chapter 3, Exploring Solution Space: Enabling Technologies, Processes andTools, provides additional presentation abstracts and describes breakaway session 2,during which workshop participants brainstormed on solutions to the challenges, andrelated technologies for overall system optimization.Chapter 4, Exploring R&D Space: Focus Areas and Potential Collaborations,provides abstracts for the luncheon speaker and for ICee contest winner speakers. Italso describes breakaway session 3, during which workshop participants identifiedcollaborations for addressing solutions to integration and soldier systems needs.Chapter 5, Soldier Systems Next Steps, describes the next phases in the SSTRMprocess.Appendixes provide the workshop agenda, a list of participants, and detailed participantinput from breakaway sessions 1 and 2. Page vii of 122

8.
Human and Systems Integration Workshop andthe SSTRMThe Soldier Human and Systems Integration Workshop was held in the Château CartierHotel in Gatineau, Québec, September 21-22, 2010, as part of the development phaseof the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmapping (SSTRM) initiative.About the Soldier Systems Technology RoadmapThe Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap project is a unique industry-governmentcollaboration that applies roadmapping principles and processes to develop acomprehensive knowledge-sharing platform and identify emerging technology prioritiesin support of the Canadian Forces Soldier Modernization Effort.Participation in the Soldier Systems TRM is free and voluntary and open to Canadianand international manufacturing, services, and technology-based companies of all sizes,and to researchers and other experts from academia, government, and not-for-profitresearch organizations from Canada and around the world.The focus of the Soldier Systems TRM—the soldier system—is defined within NATO asthe integration of everything the soldier wears, carries and consumes for enhancedindividual and collective (small unit) capability within the national command and controlstructure. It centers on the needs of the dismounted soldier, who is often away from thesupply network, and must be self-sufficient for up to 72 hours.The overarching goal of the Soldier Systems TRM is to understand how todaystechnology—and tomorrows—might contribute to a superior soldier system thatincreases capacities and operational effectiveness for the individual soldier in the fiveNATO capability areas of Command, Control, Communications, Computers andIntelligence (C4I); Survivability; Mobility; Lethality; and Sustainability.The Soldier Systems TRM exercise is governed by an Executive Steering Committeemade up of government and industry representatives, and includes technicalsubcommittees dedicated to each capability area.For information about any aspect of the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap project,visit http://www.soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca Page 8 of 122

11.
Introductory Presentation Abstracts Note. Complete workshop presentations are provided in Volumes 2 and 3 of the workshop documentation. The presentations are also available in the ICee tool on the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap web site: http://www.soldiersystems- systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca and on the web site of the Strategic Review Group: http://strategicreviewgroup.ca/Opening Remarks, Mr. T. Elliot, DG IC; Dr. D. Reding, DG DRDC Toronto;Mr. L. Garland (TSC Industry Co-Chair)The workshop was opened, and participants welcomed, by Mr. Tim Elliot, DirectorGeneral, Industry Canada; Dr. Dale Reding, Director General, DRDC Toronto; and Mr.Laurin Garland, of Vernac Ltd., Industry co-chair of the Human and Systems IntegrationTechnical Sub-committee of the Soldier System Technology Roadmap, representingindustry.These speakers emphasized the importance of the Soldier Systems TRM as a vehiclefor promoting collaboration among the many stakeholders in the realm of the soldiersystem, and welcomed and thanked those attending for their participation. Commentsincluded:  A recognition by Mr. Elliot of the innovative nature of the Innovation and Collaboration Exchange Environment (ICee), the first public-facing Wiki of the Government of Canada  The acknowledgement by Dr. Reding that the SSTRM is a way to support Canadas soldier modernization effort by helping converge on future soldier systems capability needs and the requisite supporting technologies, stimulate and forecast technological developments, and provide the structure around which planning and coordination of technical planning can take place  The observation by Mr. Garland that the SSTRM is a true collaborative effort by industry, government and academia that is rare, and that promises concrete results Page 11 of 122

17.
Demonstration of Soldier Equipment/Usage by Mr. DouglasPalmer and Canadian Forces PersonnelA highlight of past Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap workshops has been a seriesof demonstrations by Canadian Forces personnel illustrating the challenges associatedwith performing combat missions using currently available equipment. At the Human andSystems Integration Workshop, the demonstration involved a dismounted section inpartial battle gear exiting a LAV 3 armoured vehicle, performing a number ofmanoeuvres, and returning to the vehicle.The Cast of CharactersThe demonstration was lead by Mr. D. Palmer of the Directorate of Land Requirements(DLR 5) Soldier Systems Section, and a member of the Project Director Team for theIntegrated Soldier System Project. Mr. Palmer spent 42 years in the Canadian Forces,most of them the Infantry.The soldiers participating in the demonstration were:  A rifle section from the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa. Two of the soldiers have seen service in Afghanistan  A LAV 3 driver from Le Régiment de Hull, who has done a tour of duty in AfghanistanThe vehicle used for the demonstration was a LAV 30140 provided by the Directorate ofArmored Vehicle Program Management. In addition to the soldiers used in the demo,this vehicle normally has a commander and a gunner, which were not part of this demo.Instructions for Observing the DemonstrationThe workshop participants were asked to keep in mind two questions while observingthe demonstration: 1. Name one human/system integration issue that was not mentioned in the demonstration. 2. Which integration issues or deficiencies do you think are the most important to the soldier system?Participants were told they would have an opportunity to provide their answers during aplenary debriefing session following the demonstration. Page 17 of 122

18.
Introduction to the DemonstrationThe demonstration was designed to provide the workshop audience with insights into thehuman factors aspects of the soldier as a weapon platform within the dismountedinfantry.Along with the associated presentations, it addressed the first part of the four-stepworkshop process, exploring the operational space, and providing a capability recap anddemo to identify key deficiencies and priorities.To prepare the audience for the demo, it was pointed out that they would see:  Basic load and equipment configurations for four Canadian Forces roles: Commander, C9 Gunner, M203 Gunner, and rifleman  The soldiers would be divided into two four-man assault groups in an eight person sectionIt was also pointed out what the audience would not see, and would need to remember:  The weight, volume, and power demands of the rifle section when combat loaded (for the demonstration, not all of the usual equipment was included)  The demand for increased tactical-level individual and team performance in complex terrain that is a result of a detailed understanding by the soldier of: o What the commander wants to accomplish o The situation that the soldier is being exposed to o The ability to conduct target acquisition rapidly and accurately  The fact that, while equipment is designed to accommodate 95% of the population, the expectation is that 100% of the population will be required and capable of deploying and using all weapons and equipment Page 18 of 122

19.
The Action—Close With and Destroy the EnemyThe infantrys role is to close with and destroy the enemy—a task that places individualsin direct contact with the enemy, where close combat is likely.To illustrate a typical infantry mission, the demonstration was divided into seven sub-demos, with the action becoming more intense and dynamic over time.Action 1—Vehicle dismount into extended lineIn this part of the demo, the rear door of the armoured vehicle was lowered, and thesoldiers:  Dismounted from the vehicle, orienting themselves toward the enemy (the vehicle is always oriented with the enemy in front)  Made appropriate observations of the surrounding area  Took up fire positions, spacing to reduce casualties from enemy fire or IEDs  Began verbal communication about, and coordination of, their missionAction 2—Movement into single file to wood lineIn this part of the demo, the soldiers oriented themselves toward a line of woods, wherethe enemy was thought to be positioned. This illustrated:  The type of all-round observation conducted by the soldiers on an ongoing basis  The continued spacing to reduce casualties  The ability to engage targets to either side of the soldiers  Ongoing communication and coordination via verbal and hand signalsAction 3—Movement in extended line over open groundThe soldiers then moved toward the enemy position, illustrating how very exposedsoldiers are in this type of operation. In the process, they continued to demonstrate theall-round observation, spacing, ability to engage on left or right, and communication andcoordination activities that began when they first left the vehicle. Page 19 of 122

20.
Action 4—Movement into the vehicleReturning from the wood line, the soldiers demonstrated how they re-enter the vehicle,continuing to engage in all-round observation, and handing off observationresponsibilities as they enter the vehicle one-by-one. Coordination and communicationcontinued as before.Action 5—Dismount to assault lineThe soldiers then exited the vehicle again, and demonstrated an alignment designed touse firepower to the front of the vehicle and engage the enemy as a section, coveringground and engaging in close combat.Action 6—Room clearanceThe soldiers split into two groups to demonstrate entering and clearing a room. Therooms were represented by areas marked on the parking lot where the demonstrationoccurred. This illustrated:  The need for speed and good technique and tactics  The areas of responsibilities of the different soldiers  The need for continued communication and coordinationAction 7—Demonstration of individual rolesFinally, the soldiers made clear the different roles associated with the preceding actions:  An eight person section, make up of Sergeant, Master Corporal, and six corporals or privates  Two assault groups of four persons (Sergeant and three corporals or privates)  Within each assault group, a Commander, C9 Gunner, M203 Gunner, and RiflemanInteraction with observersFollowing the demonstration, the soldiers made themselves available to answerquestions and explain various pieces of equipment to the workshop participants. Thevehicle was also available to examine. Page 20 of 122

21.
The Plenary Debrief—Integration Issues ObservedAfter viewing the demonstration and interacting with the soldiers and equipment, theworkshop participants returned to the meeting room to answer the questions they hadbeen given: 1. Name one human/system integration issue that was not mentioned in the demonstration. 2. Which integration issues or deficiencies do you think are the most important to the soldier system?What follows is a summary of observations shared by participants during the debrief.Observation 1. Communications integration and coordination  Observed the need for communications integration and coordination among the soldiers and between the soldiers and the vehicle  The vehicle driver and soldiers use separate communications systemsObservation 2. Customization  There was a lot of customization going on—soldiers customizing the kit they take on operations  The backpacks the soldiers were carrying were light relative to the kit actually carried in battle, which would make it even more difficult to exit and enter a vehicleObservation 3. Situation awareness  Having spoken to all eight soldiers about deficiencies, the comment about situation awareness (SA) kept coming up  The level of SA provided will need to be adjusted to minimize information overload, and SA is not meant to be used during close-combat actionObservation 4. Low visibility for driver and commander  Visibility for the driver and commander is limited  It takes time to transition from darkness to bright sunlight or heavy fog  Noted that there is a screen inside the vehicle to show what the driver sees outside the vehicle Page 21 of 122

22.
Observation 5. Integration and compatibility of the equipment  The communications system doesnt seem to fit well with the rest of the equipment  Additional ammunition is needed but can get in the way  Best arrangement of equipment on the soldier is not trivial and is subject to personal preferences  Compatibility issues mainly raised for the gas mask which is not fully compatible with the communications system (Putting on the mask means losing the communications system, and resorting to hand signals)Observation 6. Lack of communication/education  Soldiers could be better informed about the equipment development/acquisition process, i.e., explaining why decisions are made  Need to better inform soldiers and get them more involved in feedback/decisions about equipmentObservation 7. International considerations  Canada rarely deploys as a single force, but is integrated with NATO and others  What are the interoperability capabilities among different NATO forces? Different equipment, different ammunitionObservation 8. The soldier as sensor  The soldier is the main sensor system out there  Integration of remote sensors, unmanned systems, would significantly reduce the risk and lower the workload on the soldierObservation 9. Soldiers vs. police and first responders  The soldier kit doesn‘t seem as much state-of-the-art as police and first responders kit  Little things can make big differences—e.g., gloves that dont allow easy use of equipment, a holster that is not optimal for operations, a load-carrying vest that works  Some of these minor deficiencies noted may be addressed easily and at low cost  The equipment display didn‘t appear to be as fully integrated as it could be Page 22 of 122

23.
Observation 10. Human thermoregulation issues  Enhanced thermoregulation (heat/cold management) was raised as an important issue, especially heat stroke prevention and cold managementObservation 11. The tactical vest  Limitations of current vest for carrying more equipment  Carrying 10 mags of ammunition in actual operations means less space for other components  Need the ability to snap equipment components into placeObservation 12. No knee or elbow protection  The soldiers were not wearing knee and elbow protection  It was raised that knee pads are part of the current kit, but were not worn during the demo  Need to have a solution that stays in place and permits the soldier the flexibility to reach all equipmentObservation 13. More gear means less mobility  The soldiers didnt wear everything they could possibly have in the demo—for example, no night-vision binoculars, no illuminator (TAG IR) for night ops that shows position  Soldier equipment solutions are always adjusted to its mission. Close combat night operations are the most demanding situations where more equipment is needed  Need to bear in mind that the more equipment a soldier carries the less mobile the soldier becomesObservation 14. Different sensors from different companies  Part of the problem is that different sensors come from different companies, each with their own IP, which limits full integration  Need to define good interface standard  Need to find ways enabling all the different sensors to work togetherObservation 15. Accessibility of sensors  Sensors are only good if the soldier can reach them and use them  Optimal sensors location is critical Page 23 of 122

24.
Observation 16. Kudos for including a vehicle in the demonstration  Kudos for including a vehicle in the demonstration, so that it was more realistic  Vehicles are used well in support of the soldier—e.g., for power and other functions—and need to be considered with the soldier system. They are not just for loading and carrying, but provide support in many ways  What additional ways could the vehicle be used to support the soldiers once they had exited?Conclusions Soldier Demo – Key Integration Challenges Soldier Demo – Key Integration Challenges Weight/volumeThe feedback received from Weight/volume Load carriagethe participants during the Load carriage Mobility vs Protection Mobility vs Protectionplenary session is coherent Power Powerwith the integration challenges Consumption Consumptionidentified by the Army: Nature Natureweight/volume; power; Anthropometrics Anthropometricsanthropomentrics; soldier- Soldier – Vehicle Interoperability Soldier – Vehicle Interoperabilityvehicle interoperability; and Communications Communicationstarget detection, Target Detect-Discriminate-Inform-Prosecute Target Detect-Discriminate-Inform-Prosecutediscrimination, information,and prosecution. In addition,workshop participants went beyond these basic challenges to describe other points andchallenges during the plenary. Page 24 of 122

31.
2.7 Soldier System Integration Challenges and Issues: An Industry Perspective, Mr. W. Downing (Industry Rep, TSC Speech)Provides an overview of the futuresoldier. Describes challenges facingthe soldier, including rapidly changingtechnologies, the need for integratedsystems, and the need to manage theequipment lifecycle. Outlines theneeds, including integrated/modularsystems, power, information, weightmanagement, training, and life cycleand supply chain management.Proposes a development paradigm tofollow and proposed roles for industryand the Government (Department ofNational Defence). Page 31 of 122

32.
2.8 ICee-Wiki Update, Mrs. M. Huard (IC-DND)Describes the Innovation,Collaboration and ExchangeEnvironment (ICee), a web-based application for capturing,organizing and sharinginformation on futurecapabilities, technologies,projects, products and otheritems relevant to the CanadianForces Modernization Effortused to feed the SoldierSystems TechnologyRoadmap. Outlines recentenhancements. Makes the casefor exploring and using the ICee to stay up to date with, and contribute to, the technologyroadmap. Notes that there are currently over 400 users of the ICee-Wiki. Page 32 of 122

33.
Breakaway Session 1. Key Challenges for Human and SystemsIntegration ThemesThe goal of the first breakaway session was to have workshop participants discuss theirunderstanding of key human andsystems integrations issues based onthe preceding presentations and ontheir own areas of expertise, and toprovide oral and written feedback onthose discussions.The breakout session addressed thesecond of the four steps in theworkshop process: exploring functionalspace and identifying related humanand systems integration functional andtechnical challenges for internal,physical/cognitive, and systemarchitecture and interoperability(external integration).Themes for Breakaway Session 1To ensure that all areas of integration received attention, that participants were able tofocus on their areas of interest and expertise, and that each of the approximately twentytables had participants from different sectors, the participants were asked to follow aseating plan and to focus on one of three themes that had been defined based on inputfrom the Human and Systems Integration Technical Sub-Committee: 1. Physical Integration on the soldier 2. Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the soldier 3. System Architecture and InteroperabilityFor more detail about the scope of each theme, see Figure 3. Page 33 of 122

35.
Seating Plan for Breakaway Session 1Each table in the room waslabelled with one of the threethemes that had been defined,and participants were asked tosit at a table with the theme oftheir choice.Participants were also asked tofollow the Table Seating Rulesoutlined in the slide shown here.Instructions for Breakaway Session 1Participants were given the following question to discuss at each table: What are the 5 most important functional challenges related to your Human and Systems Integration theme? Whats the problem? (You can express it as a technical challenge too.) 1. E.g., Critical parameter (e.g., Balance, bandwidth) 2. What should it be (setting the bar for 2020 & 2025)?They were asked to record their answers on flipcharts, and to follow these rules:  Sit with people from other organizations  Fill the tables  Choose a leader and recorder  Write clearly  Focus on the questions  Ask facilitators for clarifications, if necessary Page 35 of 122

36.
Plenary Report Back for Breakaway Session 1When the participants hadcompleted the BreakawaySession 1 task, a report back(plenary) session was held togive them the opportunity toshare their results verbally withthe other workshop participants.The slide shown here providedguidelines for the session.What follows, in Figure 4,Breakout Session 1 PlenaryReport Back, is a summary ofthe points made during thereport back. Figure 4. Breakaway Session 1 Plenary Report Back Theme 1—Physical Integration on the Soldier (4 Tables Reporting)1. Setting standards  Setting standards is a complex process requiring coordination  Interoperability is difficult when there is a proprietary mindset2. Complexity and uncertainty of trade-offs  Same issue, but key label is "Complexity and uncertainty of various trade-offs"  Looked at performance vs. options—there must be a "sweet zone" where you want to find yourself  Could be balancing anything from cost, to system performance, to the complexity of the system .  No self-evident road to go down—its a multi-dimensional problem based on complex systems  The challenge is to define overall system requirements precisely, to decide on overall trade offs Page 36 of 122

37.
Figure 4. Breakaway Session 1 Plenary Report Back3. Soldier burden  One of the challenges is related the procurement process  Technology is moving extremely quickly, and there is a need for a more evolutionary approach to the acquisition process  Need to ensure an acquisition cycle that fits with rapidly evolving technology4. Encumbrance: a psychological tolerance to carrying load  Challenge is resisting homeostatis—i.e., you could do all the work you want to reduce the weight of items, but the soldier will still load himself up with more stuff  Need to encourage the soldier not to overload himself. Theme 2—Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the Soldier (2 Tables Reporting)1. Dont forget the "human" in human factors  DND representatives at the table were treated as the customers, and asked what their issues are  The human must be in control of the information, because that is the nature of who we are  Anything we do moving forward should recognize we are humans, and the system must adapt to the human rather than the other way around  Looking forward, in 25 years, imagine having a laser on a rifle that enables you to laser anything in range; you push a button and you are given all necessary information about the target2. Information overload  The real issue is that soldiers today are getting too much information, a lot of it contradictory, missing, or wrong, and they are overwhelmed by data and unable to glean the necessary information  Need complete information, but not overloaded  Situational awareness, eyes forward, moving ahead  The soldier cant choose what information is delivered Page 37 of 122

39.
Homework InstructionsAfter Breakaway Session 1, before ending the first day of the workshop, participantswere given a homework assignment that would get them started working on potentialsolutions to the challenges previously identified. That involved: 1. Getting 3 stickies from the facilitators. 2. Picking 3 of the challenges already discussed. 3. Filling in the blanks on the stickies to describe proposed solution, development timeframe, related technologies, technology readiness level (TRL), and key players in the area. 4. Bringing the stickies to Day 2 of the workshop. Figure 5. Example of Technology Roadmap Brainstorming Sticky To help participants fill in their 3 stickies, they were given this example of a completed sticky. Page 39 of 122

40.
3. Exploring Solution Space: Enabling Technologies, Processes and ToolsThis chapter describes the "stickies on the wall" exercise, which was conducted at thestart of the second day of the workshop. It also provides abstracts of the presentationspreceding the second breakaway session, and describes Breakaway Session 2: TheTechnical ChallengesStickies on the Wall ExerciseBetween the first and second day of the workshop, the SSTRM team identified a list oftechnical-functional challenges based on participant input during the first day.Before the start ofthe second day,staff constructed agrid on two walls ofthe meeting room(as shown here),with the challengeslisted across the top,grouped by the three integration themes of physical, psychological/cognitive, and systemarchitecture and interoperability.At the start of the second day, and during the first coffee break, workshop participantscopied the stickies they had filled in as homework, and posted them on the grid to beused during the second breakaway session described later in this chapter. Page 40 of 122

41.
Presentation Abstracts3.1 Challenges and Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto)Describes the Human-SystemIntegration (HSI) process.Outlines a process for ensuringthat HSI is considered in soldiersystems. Describes the ArmyCombat Clothing andEquipment Survey System(ACCESS) and the 1997 LandForces Anthropometric Survey.Introduces BoSS XXI BodyScanning system, explains howit works, and compares resultswith the 1997 survey. Outlines the way ahead, including challenges associated with clothed anthro for workspace modelling and other anthropometry challenges, such as workspace modeling and analysis, an Advanced Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS), biomechanical modeling tools, an integrated performance modelling environment, virtual reality tools. Describes the key challenge as developing ameasurement of effective soldier system integration. Discussed "A Soldiers Day Multi-media Database," designed to inform all stakeholders in R&D, materiel development,acquisition and life cycle management about the actual Canadian soldier system. Page 41 of 122

42.
3.2. The Role of Biomechanics in Effective Soldier System Integration, Dr. J. Stevenson (Queens University) Defines and explains the importance of biomechanics for the soldier system. Describes tools for measuring biomechanics, including direct and indirect internal forces, effects at the human-object interface, motion, line of sight, and sound. Explains ergonomics. Describes using the military or Caesar (Civilian American and European Anthropometric Resource) database to aid in design.Discusses soldier system integration. Describes the ERG mission, objectives andprocess.3.3 Virtual Simulations for Soldiers: Concepts and Applications, Dr. F. Bernier (DRDC Valcartier)Defines immersive virtualsimulation. Describes theVirtual Immersion Laboratory(VIL), and the Gaming andEmerging TechnologyLaboratory (GETL). OutlinesDRDC defence and securityactivities. Describesapproaches to creating aStressful Virtual Environment(SVE). Provides the example ofmedic training in a combatenvironment. Page 42 of 122

44.
3.5 Soldier-Vehicle Integration: A TTCP Approach, Dr. M. Ducharme (DRDC Valcartier) Provides an overview of TTCP (The Technical Cooperation Program) Land TP-2. Discusses land-systems integration, and the system-of- systems approach. Describes the vehicle integration study, focusing on the integrated soldier and vehicle protection, and the networked soldier and vehicle integration. Describes the Land Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL), and the TP-2 vision in development. The 3TTCP reports will be posted on the ICee too whenever the final versions are completed. Page 44 of 122

45.
Breakaway Session 2. System Optimization: Solutions, EnablingTechnologies, Processes and ToolsThe second breakawaysession addressed the thirdpart of the four-step workshopprocess: exploring the solutionspace and identifying potentialsolutions/technologies forsystem optimization.The goal of the session was tobrainstorm solutions and theirrelated technologies (S&T) foran overall systemoptimization. For the session,participants were asked tochange the lens through whichoverall soldier system capability optimization was viewed—that is, to shift theperspective from the vertical orientation to a horizontal view that integrated solutionsacross silos (figure 7). Page 45 of 122

49.
Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling TechnologiesTable 3 1. Improving body worn sensors integration  Technology challenge 8  The backbone of the system will have to be a "smart skin" that will provide a physical backbone for connectivity 2. Reducing the effects of stressors  Technology challenge 12  The skin will have to provide environmental controls (e.g., for heat and cold) 3. Improving integration with C4I Systems  Technology challenge 21  The skin must be wired to a PAN (Personal Area Network)Table 4 1. Improve modularity/configurability  The vest becomes a modular system on which the soldier can connect components  The weapon is also modular, and components can connect to it 2. Improve interface compatibility  This becomes a mission-specific issue  Software should use all available information and provide details for each soldier and soldier group as to what they need for the mission  The vest and weapons must be modular enough to attach what they need for the missionTable 5 1. Need a mandated requirement for Human/Systems integration program  Best way to address all integration needs  HSI must be mandated as a key component of all projects—cuts across all processes and programs  It was done in the States, and can be done here 2. Multiple functional and technical challenges (physical)  Cut across many challenges on the physical interface, sensor integration and C4I integration  Key is to use multi-functional materials and devices 3. Multiple functional and technical challenges (optimized Human/Machine interface) Page 49 of 122

50.
Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling Technologies  Need a common, tailored, optimized soldier system human/machine interface  Would enable cutting across an enormous number of challengesTable 6 1. Improving integration with everything  Challenges 20-23--Define an integration process and project management process that gets applied to all design problems—an integration process  Integration with weapons, C4I, vehicles, sensors, and so on—a system of systems  Integrating a text bed that includes actual soldiers in the testing  From a physiological and psychological perspective, the soldier is not going to change noticeable over the next 100 years  Define those boundaries, which are independent of technology, as the start point for integration 2. Integrating HSI into the acquisition process  Need to legislate human systems integration into the acquisition process  DRDC taking the lead to develop a Human/Systems Integration lab where industry can come to get info and try out solutions with real soldiersTable 7  Smart textiles  Regroup as much as possible to think in terms of system of systems  Breathable textiles; drug-dispensing textiles; self-cleaning textiles; conductive fibres; energy-harvesting textiles; harvesting water textiles  For C4I—smart visorsTable 8  Battle space situational awareness  Looked at challenges 7, 16, and 21, with a few others thrown in  Focus was on battle space, and situational awareness between the top and front line  Ability to use comms type system with filtering capability dealing with audio, text, symbolsTable 9 1. Displays  Challenges 4, 5 and 7: improving physical usability, modularity, configurability and system compatibility—all intertwined  Looked at displays, and having only one display per soldier 2. User Interfaces Page 50 of 122

51.
Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling Technologies  Need to focus on user interfaces and basing them on background knowledge of how commercial companies use them.  Must be high-impact—dont need all small improvements, must be importantTable 10 1. Improving interface capability  Important to be able to connect all components of system with common power source  Need unlimited connectivity  Hope military will continue to describe needs  Need to focus on connectors and standard for small, light-weight connectors 2. Reducing physical burden  Smart textiles in garments  Integration of systems 3. Improving fit/form and anthropometry  SkeletBone skin that does not lose user capabilitiesTable 11  Sensor integration  Need to enable modularity—to make equipment from different suppliers available  Need an industry/government standards ecosystem that would be responsible for defining standards and minimum requirements  Need to modify the procurement process –go through the process, select a short list of vendors who come close, and then choose a supplier  Related to the procurement process, need to look at a minimum threshold and some kind of point system beyond thatDetailed Results of Breakaway Session 2Following the breakaway session, the stickies and the completed tables were collectedand compiled. The results are provided in Appendix D, Breakaway Session 2 ParticipantInput: System Optimization. Enabling Technologies, Processes and Tools. Page 51 of 122

52.
4. Exploring R&D Space: Focus Areas and Potential CollaborationsThis chapter provides abstracts of the luncheon presentation and ICee contest winnerpresentations that preceded the third breakaway session. It also describes BreakawaySession 3: Focus Areas and Collaborations.Luncheon Speaker4.1 Luncheon Speaker: Overview of the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Industrial Program (SADI), Mr. M. A. Blais (IC-ITO)Provides an overview of the Industrial Technology Office --Overview Industrial Technology Office Over viewStrategic Aerospace andDefence Initiative (SADI), which SADI Objectives SADI Objectives  Encourage strategic R&D that will result in innovation andwas launched in April 2007 as a Encourage strategic R&D that will result in innovation and excellence in new products and services; excellence in new products and services;replacement for Technology  Enhance the competitiveness of Canadian aerospace, defence, Enhance the competitiveness of Canadian aerospace, defence,Partnerships Canada (TPC). space and security companies; and, space and security companies; and,Describes SADI objectives,  Foster collaboration between research institutes, universities, Foster collaboration between research institutes, universities, colleges, and the private sector. colleges, and the private sector.eligibility requirements, proposalassessment criteria, benefitsmonitoring, and repaymentplans. Provides contactinformation. 33 Page 52 of 122

53.
ICee Contest Winner Presentation AbstractsFollowing are abstracts of presentations made by workshop participants who won theICee contest associated with the Soldier Systems and Human Integration workshop.These participants, or their organizations, posted relevant information on the ICee, wereentered in a draw as a results, and won the opportunity to present at the workshop.4.2 Infantryman Communication Interface (ICI), Mr. A. Poirier, Rheinmetall DefenceDescribes the need for tailoredC4I solutions with a minimal setof features to address specificsoldier missions. Outlinesdesign constraints. Proposes asolution: the SoldierCommunication Interface (ICI),which acts as an intelligent linkbetween the customer GPS andradio to provide improvedsoldier capabilities.Describes the radio interface,solution GPS interface, powerconsiderations, and systemintegration and human factor considerations. Page 53 of 122

58.
Plenary Report Back from Breakaway Session 3When the participants hadcompleted the Breakaway Session 3task, a plenary session was held togive them an opportunity to sharetheir results verbally with the otherworkshop participants. The slideshown here provided guidelines forthe session, which consisted ofdescribing the R&D areas of focusand the collaborators identified.Results of BreakawaySession 3The following tables describe horizontal, cross-cutting R&D efforts that participants atthe workshop suggested would contribute to human/system integration for the soldier.Each of the following R&D focus area section includes:  A description of the R & D Area  The relevant R&D requirements  Potential collaborators/experts in the domain that were identified Page 58 of 122

68.
5. Soldier Systems TRM Next StepsThis chapter provides an abstract of the closing presentation by LCol. Bodner, describeshow the roadmap will be developed further with a Capstone Report and Action Plan, andoutlines ongoing roadmap activities on the ICee database and wikiSSTRM Next Steps and Workshop Closure, LCol. M.A. Bodner(DRDC)Reviews the objectives andoutcomes of the currentdevelopment phase of theSoldier Systems TRM.Describes overall TRM phases.Discusses the objectives of theupcoming implementationphase, its approach andgovernance. Introduces theSoldier Systems TechnologyHub, which will be at the coreof the implementation phase,and the hub participants.Outlines the ways in which the upcoming Capstone Report and Action Plan will be usedto guide the next phase. The functions of the proposed Soldier systems Center aredescribed.Outlines potential funding programs that might assist future R&D projects. Provides anexample of how the SSTRM findings can be applied to solving soldier requirements.Show coherence of TRM process to DRDCs four interrelated roles. Describes short andlong-term measures of success for the SSTRM. Outlines remaining Development Phaseactivities. Reiterates soldier systems challenges, and encourages workshop participantsto stay engaged in the TRM process. Page 68 of 122

69.
Developing the RoadmapThe content of the workshop, the briefings and input from the Human and SystemsIntegration Technical Steering Committee and the SSTRM Project Management Office,will be used to write a Soldier Systems TRM Capstone Report and Action Plan.Sharing Knowledge with the ICee Database and WikiKnowledge will continue to be shared using the Soldier Systems TRM Innovation,Collaboration and Exchange Environment (ICee), which provides an online databaseand Wiki that can be used to collaborate with others who are interested in soldiersystems. This password-protected tool includes sections for communicating restricted,sensitive information meant for a selected audience.The ICee is open to all who wish to participate in the Soldier Systems TechnologyRoadmap. Participants can contribute to both the database and the Wiki. For moreinformation about the ICee tool visithttp://www.soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca Page 69 of 122

84.
2. Stickies Content from Workshop ParticipantsTheme 1—Physical Integration 1. Improving system characterization (physical) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersRequirements maturation Actual soldier systems will have to be tried for 5-10 years in all 2015 5  End customer the field before we see convergence of requirements  user  industryStructural applications of Capability of current composite materials has almost reached  advanced composite 2020 4  NRCadvanced composite materials its limit. Nanotechnology provides a promising approach for materials with CNT  DRDC materials with improved properties. Explore the application of  enhancements of 5  Universities this technology in two-scales: constituents level and lamina composite with CNT level of composites to reduce stress concentrationsDevelop lightweight flexible Fabrics and components would have to be FR, with stand  develop fabric/FR 2015  scientistsfabrics to be used in PPE wear and tear from soldier, adaptable helmet and vest. fabric  fabric designerscomponents face/arm Should disperse blow from stop metal must be comfortable,  develop print process  plastic suppliers, mouldedprotection as well, have the ―cool‖ factor of FR fabric products  develop and design new fastening system that can take the dustEquipment standards that are Determine and clearly present why such standards are R&D helmet 2015  industryunrealistic (i.e. helmet impact necessary and the research behind them. Recognize that development  governmentrequirements of 14 feet/sec) technology might take a while to catch up , be open to interim solutions  military Page 84 of 122

103.
17. Improving decision making Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersCannot offer just in time Have an expert system, sensors that can detect user-task- 1) Expert System, 2015 Currentinformation for specific roles environ and then offer only the info the user needs. The info knowledge baseand situations – Currently give would be presented in the visor. And not raw data, but 2)High performance 6all information which leads to integrated, analyzed comprehensive info. visor, easy to read, nocognitive workload bad effectPsychological data collected Standard communication systems appropriate bandwidth 1) Soldier worn systems 2020on soldiers does not transferdirectly to decision making – 2) Communications datacannot provide customized interpretationsolutionsProcurement Timelines Involve powerful procurement folks in the roadmap process – they need to help us come up with creative procurement solutionsCollaboration between A business ecosystem with a keystone company to lead 1) Masters of 2015 9 Carleton Universitycompanies is limited due to IP standards, integration is necessary to create space where Technology Innovation Tony Bailettiprotection companies can communicate on common items. Ottawa is Management graduates world leader in creating business ecosystems; IE CoralCEA, to lead business masters in technology innovation management, Big Blue 2) Business ecosystem Button keystone company (open source based) leads ecosystem Ottawa University, Carleton 8 University Page 103 of 122